“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” - Theodore Dalrymple

Emasculated liars. Easy to control.

And on this very thread we witness people who actually think of themselves as of the left, as dissidents applauding the curtailment - by whatever subtle prejudice or blunt object - of free speech. And also we can and have watched people turn themselves into emasculated liars - proving to themselves in public that 2+2=5.

“We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” —C.S. Lewis

And on this very thread we witness people who actually think of themselves as of the left, as dissidents applauding the curtailment - by whatever subtle prejudice or blunt object - of free speech. And also we can and have watched people turn themselves into emasculated liars - proving to themselves in public that 2+2=5.

emmeff wrote:There was no opportunism. No money changed hands. The original articles remain online. No one was imprisoned or lost employment because of the outcome. The respondents found no viable grounds for appeal. There was no diminution of the freedom of speech. But the distortion, collusion and political opportunism have continued ever since.

Emmeff - Bromberg J held that the comments made by Bolt were offensive and, not being justified by the fair comment exception in setion 18D, that they were unlawful. Bolt, and the Herald and Weekly times, were ordered not to repeat the comments.

No doubt there are grounds for dispute about how far 'free speech' should extend. To me, ordering that certain sentiments must not be expressed on grounds that they are merely offensive' is enough of a constraint that it can reasonably be considered diminution of free speech.

An Indigenous Australian Rules footballer was called an "ape" by a child at a match. This caused paroxysms of agony countrywide - the general consensus being that the child was of white trash parentage and therefore was herself a victim too.

This was hilariously compounded by the president of another Australian Rules club who suggested on air that the musical King Kong should use the "ape" footballer to advertise its opening in Melbourne. The general consensus being that he is actually a good fellow and therefore not a racist at all.

Unless of course you are an Australian modern-leftist and then your position is one of outrage. These are the people who during the Iraq war said that Arabs were not suited to democracy. Which of course isn't racist either.

“We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” —C.S. Lewis

stringer_bell wrote:Like one or the other basically. If you're like you say you are that kind of talk wouldn't worry you. It does worry Argon because he's completely full of shit.

I've read argo's post for ten years too, and while I don't agree with his politics, I would never tell him that I know where he lives and that I'm going to smash his face in. Violent threats are serious, and the detail about knowing where to find him is really creepy.

I'd be happy to hang out with the guy, he seems like he has an interesting life, and he has a sense of humor. I like interesting people with a sense of humor, even if they don't agree with my political view. I can't imagine Argo telling anyone he knows where they live and that he's going to hurt them.

And from what I gather, your if your threats do bother him, it's probably because in his line of work he sees people who make good on threats and hurt people all the time. The world is full of violent criminals who hurt and murder people for a trifle, and argo works with these people.

Your threats disturbed me, and they're not even directed at me, so why wouldn't they disturb him? You said you know where he lives and you're going to smash his face in. Those are disturbing words.

Lost Soul wrote:I have it on good authority that William Brennan, Maobama's CIA head, will be referred by the IG for criminal indictment.

It makes you appear childish, petulant and creepy. But if that's your thing, run with it. You really seem to enjoy threatening people with violence here in the anonymity of the web. Do you think sort of behavior is in any way admirable? Do you think it makes you seem manly and fierce?

Surely this thread is ready for the Famous Dishes now?

Korky wrote:i remember being on Samothraki island is 2003 and apologizing for being an American under Bush II.

matt_melb wrote:I think he's planning to repeal the bit of that law that makes it a crime to 'offend' someone, yes.

I'd be ok with that.

I still think there should be recourse, however, if someone calls you (by name) a fraud in the media/public arena without any proof. That seems like slander to me...

If someone says "Bob got money for being Black and he's not Black", then Bob should be able to sue that person if that person was spinning shit and Bob is Black. The difference to me is that Bob is named. It isn't just some philosophical discussion about what Black identity is or how Black is defined... what Bolt did was to accuse specific people of misrepresenting their identity to capitalise on benefits. Without evidence (other than "well, they look like white people to me").

janieblack wrote:I still think there should be recourse, however, if someone calls you (by name) a fraud in the media/public arena without any proof. That seems like slander to me...

If someone says "Bob got money for being Black and he's not Black", then Bob should be able to sue that person if that person was spinning shit and Bob is Black. The difference to me is that Bob is named. It isn't just some philosophical discussion about what Black identity is or how Black is defined... what Bolt did was to accuse specific people of misrepresenting their identity to capitalise on benefits. Without evidence (other than "well, they look like white people to me").

I can think of 3 theoretical modes of redress:1. Bob can have the relevant person charged with a criminal offence.2. Bob can bring a civil action against the relevant person and recover monetary damages.3. Bob can have the person compelled to publish a retraction with equal prominence to the original publication.

Vince wrote:Would I be breaking the law or liable to be sued if I was in Australia and said they weren't aborigines because they are white? Do you know?

Vince, I am a latecomer to this debate, but I believe it would rest on a fine interpretation of the law.

You would probably be fine to stand on your soapbox and proclaim that these individuals are not aborigines. Apart from vocal condemnation from the chardonnay quaffing, caffe latte sipping, tofu munching, sandal wearing, government teat sucking, Australian Green left set, you'd be fine.

However, you would probably run afoul of the law if you were to immediately follow that statement up with another one, to wit "These people have swindled the public purse out of taxpayer's money by claiming to be aborigine"

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the distinction.

Incidentally, I do personally know somebody in that category. Blond hair, blue eyes, 1/16 aboriginal (that is, one great grandparent). He got into the Australian diplomatic corps on the basis of his aboriginality. Seeing as only 26 people or so a year were accepted into the Aussie diplomatic corps that year, he leaped ahead of thousands of other applicants. Quite a feat seeing that he didn't even finish an undergraduate degree. It definitely has some advantages to have a little aboriginal blood in Australia.

I think Vince's point is that it should be a visual test, and that aboriginality is not simply something that you feel yourself to be, and whether others in that ethnic classification accept your feeling as valid, but actually how you look.

I think this is a fair comment. It just means that some people feel the criteria as to what makes a person aboriginal should be changed. Those criteria did not, after all, come from a burning bush, they are not set in stone, and can be changed by an act of parliament.

Parliament, after all, is a sovereign body, not a delegate one, and people should be free to express their opinion that the law on what classifies a person as an aboriginal should be changed.

The benefits you get from being aboriginal aren't all that fantastic when you look at the conditions many FNS live in

And very true that is. I don't think I saw a single sober FN citizen in Carmacks or Whitehorse, and my heart goes out to them. The people whose photographs Argon is displaying, though, are not, I would think, be of that ilk.

1) First nations in OZ, Canada and the US have criteria to determine who qualifies as aboriginal. Aboriginal geroups have agreed to these criteria. It isn't some visual test

2)The benefits you get from being aboriginal aren't all that fantastic when you look at the conditions many FNS live in

That wasnt what i was asking. i dont give a shit if these people want to think of themselves as aborigines 9although I hope they dont get too many advantages for making that claim)

rather I was asking if I could get in trouble in Oz for claiming they werent aborigines and My understanding now is that i can if I sugest they are cynically claiming to be aborigines but no if they genuinely believe themselves to be entitled to those benefits.

Whether they are or arent and the rules around that are of secondary intererest - although I do think it a bit funny that these whiteys are somehow entitled to benefits aimed at, I would think, others.

Vince wrote:The people in those photos are NOT Aborigine and to think they are is ridiculous and if they ckaim they are or if anyone thinks they are they are utterly deluded.

Vince, I don't understand your level of passion here.

Some people find it important to define themselves, to a greater or lesser extent, by reference to their ancestors. Some find it important not to.

Of those who do, some align themselves more closely with some ancestors and their culture than others.

Why do you care?

It's not like you have to keep a spreasheet.

I dont care. a bunch of whites choose to think of themselves as aborigines is ludicrous but its not my problem. I cant even get worked up about dole sroungers , asylum seekers whatever.

I do think is very wrong that accusing these people of being cynicaly on the make is against the law. I imagine a lot of these whites claiming to be aborigines are on the make and you should be allowed to say that. But seemingly I am but you australians arent. But you lot dont seem to care. Very odd.

Vince wrote: I imagine a lot of these whites claiming to be aborigines are on the make and you should be allowed to say that. But seemingly I am but you australians arent. But you lot dont seem to care. Very odd.

We don't care Vince, because as far as federal government Rorts and wasted money goes, its quite small. The number of people involved is relatively small, the money involved is small, and the chances of making a provable case against somebody whom you suspect of being dis-ingenuous in their aboriginality is also small. Take my acquaintance who managed to sail into the Australian diplomatic service, for example: I'll give him credit, he definitely talked the talk on every occasion people ever asked him about his indigenous heritage. To listen to him talk, his great grandmother's blood ran true in his veins, and he supposedly felt a true affiliation to the Ptidinjara tribe or whatever it was.

But its a lot of effort to go for a life advantage, and I don't think many Aussies would emulate his efforts.

And, underlying all that, you have the genuine disadvantage suffered by the black indigenous people, which successive Australian governments have been trying to solve for decades, at tremendous cost, without success.

There are much larger sums of money going to waste in Aussie government spending than this one. Look at the untold billions being spent on illegal immigrants. Considering asylum seekers aren't even Australian citizens or residents spending a single cent of taxpayer's money on them is a bloody scandal, which is why Australians, rightly, get seriously steamed up about it.

One could almost infer that Australians don't get upset about whites getting an advantage by claiming to be indigenous precisely because they're white! I mean, it's not like they're immigrants. I guess the idea of actual brown people getting public money is the line in the sand.

Benefits for "blacks", not blacks!

Lost Soul wrote:I have it on good authority that William Brennan, Maobama's CIA head, will be referred by the IG for criminal indictment.

For the edification of all -- you are not Aborigine in Australia just on your own say-so. That is not how it works. If I say "Hey everyone, I am a Koori woman", that does not make me a Koori woman. Even if great-aunt Ethel was a Koori woman, that is not how it works. Although that is not what Bolt or Argon would like you to understand about the debate...

section8 wrote:What's the deal with the asylum seekers? It seems to be a major concern, but I read it's something like 6000 people/year. Is that small a number really something to get upset about?

We take something like 15- 20,000 refugees a year under refugee resettlement program, the 6000 illegal queue jumpers arriving by boat usually end up accepted into this program, leaving only 9-14000 places for genuine refugees applying from camps in the first safe country of refuge as they're meant to.